If the Oslo carnage in Israel continues at its current pace, the number of Israelis murdered since the signing of the Rabin-Arafat ‘Peace Accord’ in 1993 soon will be larger – when measured as proportional to population size – than the total losses by the United States in the Vietnam War.

Let me repeat that. Israel’s mindless politicians will have produced a death rate that exceeds the losses of the United States in Vietnam when measured as proportional to population size. With the obvious difference that almost all Americans who died in Vietnam were military personnel killed in combat, whereas almost all Israelis murdered by Oslo since 1993 were civilians sitting on buses and in cafes, and a huge number were children. This is the ‘peace process’ produced by the Cult of Oslo.

I believe that one of the most harmful aspects of the Oslo psychosis has been the convincing of Israelis of the fallacious doctrine of inevitability. The argument goes something like this: Everything that has occurred until now and that likely will occur soon, down to and including Palestinian statehood, was always inevitable. It was pre-ordained and predetermined. Israel never had any alternative to Oslo and has none today. Israel has no choice now but to seek dialogue and negotiations with the PLO.

The Six Day War made the first intifada inevitable, or so this argument goes, and that made Oslo inevitable, and that made Palestinian statehood and Israel returning to the 1949 borders inevitable. The first Camp David of Menachem Begin made Palestinian violence and ‘liberation’ inevitable, leading to the inevitable second Camp David.

But is it true that Israel never had any choices, that everything was inevitable? Is it true that Israel today has no choice but to continue Oslo?

The simple truth is that not only was it not inevitable, but Israeli policy always had a clear and successful role model it might have followed to defend itself and bring about peace.

That role model was denazification. The denazification programs applied by the Americans and Allies to Germany, Italy and Japan. Israel could have adopted the main features of denazification starting in 1967 (and maybe earlier among Green Line Arabs), with its own innovations and adaptations as needed.

How would denazification of the Palestinians work?

First, after restoring complete Israeli martial rule over the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, those Palestinians who were involved in suicide bombings and similar atrocities at any level (including planning and financing), would be quietly taken away and properly disposed of.

Other members of terrorist organizations would be jailed without trial for indefinite periods or deported. The political leadership of the PLO and Hamas would be tried as war criminals and as enemies of humanity in Nuremberg-like trials and executed. Israel would make it clear that terrorism is war and not civil crime.

Second, democratic institutions would be imposed upon the populations of the West Bank and Gaza ruthlessly, without niceties and regardless of their acquiescence. The Palestinian schools would be managed directly by Israel, which would dictate the curriculum and oversee informers to weed out radicals among teachers and students. Ditto for the Palestinian mosques and churches. The Temple Mount would be controlled by Jews and Israel; the control over its mosques would be granted to Turkey.

The territories would be under permanent martial law with no apologies. They would be closed to Israeli and foreign journalists. Reporters entering these areas would be arrested and deported — and risk being shot by snipers overseeing the tranquility of the streets.

The media would be closely monitored, and the slightest hint of approval for Palestinian terrorism and violence would be grounds for immediate loss of press credentials and confiscation of equipment; for foreign correspondents the penalty would be swift deportation.

Every Palestinian teacher and public servant would be required to take loyalty oaths on sacred books, swearing to oppose violence and inform on terrorists and acknowledging the legitimacy both of Israel’s existence and its martial rule in the territories – all in writing and filmed signing. Those who will not sign will not work.

Israel would then prepare two lists – the White List and the Black List. On the White List would be names of people, families, clans, villages and towns who are entitled to privileges.

The privileges would include simple mobility around the territories (as opposed to indefinite house arrest); the right to day jobs in Israel, to electricity, water, sewer service, phone service; the right to have a bank account; and the right to vote in local elections for municipal representatives.

A White List political organization would be set up, based somewhat on the Northern Alliance set up by the United States to govern Afghanistan. It would be a political puppet controlled by Israel, not an independent Palestinian political entity, although its members would enjoy certain privileges.

About the Author:Steven Plaut is a professor at the University of Haifa. He can be contacted at steveneplaut@yahoo.com.

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

The “brand new” Israeli Labor Party has revealed its brand new political platform and brand new agenda and we thought we would sum it all up for you. Here are the planks of the Labor Party Platform: Appeasement is the highest form of resistance and vehemence. Cowardice is the highest form of bravery. Treason is […]